Weather Channel...RIP?
Martin Rowley
I see from the Daily Mail of a couple of days back that the Weather
Channel is ceasing operations this Friday (30th). As they were only
advertising for forecasters in the current (Jan) issue of 'Weather' it
suggests a major switch/pullout of backing...does anyone have any
further details?
--
Martin Rowley
(Please note.. I now take part in the nospam trial..all mail *automatically*
returned with address found in this header will be binned without reaching
me...to reply to *me* use: mar...@booty.demon.co.uk )
Philip Layton
From The Times:
THE Weather Channel, Britain's only 24-hour TV
forecasting service, closed yesterday after 16 months. The
cable and satellite operation was shut because of audience
indifference, despite the country's obsession with the
weather.
As staff at the channel's tiny studio in the West End of
London packed up for the last time, Landmark, the US
company that owns it, blamed distribution problems for
the decision.
"If you cannot attain distribution your product cannot be
seen," Kathy Lane, a spokesman in Atlanta, said. "We
carried out a strategy review in the fourth quarter of 1997
and ... it was decided it was no longer economically viable
to continue. It is very sad."
Other observers, however, cited different problems.
Some said the channel's content - a blend of rolling
forecasts and weather-related features - was too
American in style to suit a British audience already well
served with quality television forecasts. Some argued that
Britain was too small and its weather too undramatic to
sustain a round-the-clock service. The Dutch and Italian
versions of the channel have also been closed, possibly
adding to the existing redundancy total of 69.
In its dying weeks, the British channel was attracting only
320,000 viewers a week. A healthy satellite channel, such
as Sky 1, has an average audience of more than 5.3
million.
In America however, the 15-year-old Weather Channel,
owned by the same company, goes into more than 65
million homes and is regularly in the ten most popular
channels.
Cable space is currently at a premium and the Weather
Channel's slot will be snapped up - possibly by one of the
BBC's channels, such as UK Horizon. Colm Feeney,
broadcasting director of Western International, a media
buying company, said: "The US backers will be quite
surprised at this failure but it is not surprising to us. One of
the problems in Britain is that it is so small. In the US each
state is about the size of the UK and so there are lots of
different extremes of weather to talk about.
"Here, the weather patterns aren't as exciting; there aren't
the hurricanes or huge freezes to sustain it so it became a
bit dull. We are also very well served by our weather
presenters on the terrestrial channels, both locally and
nationally.
"It's the same with the Discovery Channel, which does
reasonably well here. It is incredibly successful in the
States largely because their mainstream television channels
are so bad."
--
___________________________________________________
Phil Layton
Guildford. UK.
NATS. Terminal Control. LATCC. My Views not NATS.
Will
Philip Layton wrote in message <34d2ceed...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>From The Times:
>
>
> THE Weather Channel, Britain's only 24-hour TV
> forecasting service, closed yesterday after 16 months. The
> cable and satellite operation was shut because of audience
> indifference, despite the country's obsession with the
> weather.
>
I admit to find this surprising, but is it indifference or is it that they were
expecting too much, after all only a percentage have access to satellite and
cable or indeed want it. I do not have a satellite dish, and in my rural
location, it will be well into next century before we are wired up, so I think
we have to a bit careful drawing conclusions. We should not compare ourselves
with the USA as they are streets ahead of us in the communication stakes.
Also it was not well advertised, I have spoken to several and they have never
heard of it, (they do not have cable either), and I only found out about it at
work, perhaps I am slow, perhaps I do not know the right people, or go to the
wrong Lodge, but if it had been advertised more (papers and on terrestial TV,
but then it wouldn't would it ?) then it could have been more successful.
Just my 10p worth, probably all rubbish, just like my recent forecasts :-)
Cheers,
Will.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto: wi...@lyneside.demon.co.uk
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk (Site updated 15/01/98)
A (C.O.L) BH site, one mile north of Crowthorne station at 67m a.s.l.
in sunny Royal Berkshire
\ - + - /
DISCLAIMER - All views expressed by myself are personal and do not
necessarily represent those of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Watkins
Will wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Just my 10p worth, probably all rubbish, just like my recent
> forecasts :-)
There, there Will. There is always next week ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will.
> --
Cheers
Ian
John Beauchamp
In article: <34d2ceed...@news.dial.pipex.com>
phil....@dial.pipex.com (Philip Layton) writes:
>
> From The Times:
>
>
> THE Weather Channel, Britain's only 24-hour TV
> forecasting service, closed yesterday after 16 months. The
> cable and satellite operation was shut because of audience
********
> indifference, despite the country's obsession with the
> weather.
>
In this part of the world (Portsmouth) the local cable company scheduled
the Weather Channel on the same channel as the Travel Channel. So we
could only watch it after midnight !
--
John Beauchamp O-O
(---)
jo...@astcss.demon.co.uk {{___}}
~~ ~~
Jamie
In article <34d2ceed...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
phil....@dial.pipex.com (Philip Layton) wrote:
> A healthy satellite channel, such as Sky 1, has an average audience of
> more than 5.3 million.
Now I know this is off topic, but I must point out that Sky 1 has *NEVER*
had an audience of 5.3 million and therefore can't possible have an average
of that.
The facts: Sky 1's top rated programme for w/e 11/01/98 was 'Friends' with
just 1.4 million viewers. The highest rated programme on Sky Tv was the
fooball and only that got 1.5 million viewers.
Jamie
--
jim....@argonet.co.uk
j.p.ma...@eee.salford.ac.uk
Peter Wright
In article <829601...@astcss.demon.co.uk>, John Beauchamp
<Jo...@astcss.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article: <34d2ceed...@news.dial.pipex.com>
>phil....@dial.pipex.com (Philip Layton) writes:
>
>>
>> From The Times:
>>
>>
>> THE Weather Channel, Britain's only 24-hour TV
>> forecasting service, closed yesterday after 16 months. The
>> cable and satellite operation was shut because of audience
> ********
>> indifference, despite the country's obsession with the
>> weather.
>>
>
>In this part of the world (Portsmouth) the local cable company scheduled
>the Weather Channel on the same channel as the Travel Channel. So we
>could only watch it after midnight !
>
failure was that people did not know about it or couldn't receive it.
If there were a weather channel that I could get at the press of a button, and
that had good content, I would certainly look at it frequently. But the opportunity
never arose.
Of course, if it had the content of 'The Weather Show' I would give up after the
first 3 times.
Less than 2 years ago I talked to some of the people who were planning 'The
Weather Network'. Their ideas were exciting, and the scheme showed
considerable promise, although their plans for widespread distribution were at
the time dubious. Then, 'The Weather Channel' took them over, in order to
wipe out the competition. Now 'The Weather Channel' have given up. I wonder
what would have happened if 'The Weather Network' had had a chance to
develop their ideas?
--
Peter Wright
Westwind Services
Edgmond, Shropshire E-mail: Pe...@westwind.demon.co.uk
Past weather data : Monthly weather bulletin Britain and Europe
Tim Matthews
In article <na.d4247e4811....@argonet.co.uk>, Jamie
<jim....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> The facts: Sky 1's top rated programme for w/e 11/01/98 was 'Friends' with
> just 1.4 million viewers. The highest rated programme on Sky Tv was the
> fooball and only that got 1.5 million viewers.
Didn't a recent England game clock up 6 million?
Tim.
So, ya think ya funny, eh? Try me...
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/tim.m
Keiron Carroll
>>
>>
>> THE Weather Channel, Britain's only 24-hour TV
>> forecasting service, closed yesterday after 16 months. The
>> cable and satellite operation was shut because of audience
>> weather.
I for one will miss it greatly, I used to have the weather channel on
while eating breakfast. I must say that the presenters were most
competent and enjoyed 'the 5-day planner' 'world weather' 'ski-report'
slots which came amongst the more bread & butter forecasting.
It's not suprising though that audiences were small. Like has been
mentioned, who knew it was on? On satellite it was only on until I
think 11 a.m when it was taken over by horse racing or other. It really
is not general entertainment viewing!
Any how it will be sadly missed, I'll keep eating breakfast though and
I'll put up with the Beeb slots every half hour instead. I do feel sorry
for the presenters & backroom staff, they did a good job!
Keiron Carroll
Coventry, England
Paul Hyett
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Jamie stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
>In article <34d2ceed...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>phil....@dial.pipex.com (Philip Layton) wrote:
>
>> A healthy satellite channel, such as Sky 1, has an average audience of
>> more than 5.3 million.
>
>Now I know this is off topic, but I must point out that Sky 1 has *NEVER*
>had an audience of 5.3 million and therefore can't possible have an average
>of that.
>just 1.4 million viewers.
Yay!!
BTW, where did you find their viewing figures?
> The highest rated programme on Sky Tv was the
>fooball and only that got 1.5 million viewers.
>
>Jamie
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Jamie
In article <46WoycAq...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Yay!!
>
> BTW, where did you find their viewing figures?
BARB figures are available weekly in 'Broadcast' magazine.
Jamie
--
jim....@argonet.co.uk
j.p.ma...@eee.salford.ac.uk
John Sinclair
>Now I know this is off topic, but I must point out that Sky 1 has *NEVER*
>had an audience of 5.3 million and therefore can't possible have an average
>of that.
>The facts: Sky 1's top rated programme for w/e 11/01/98 was 'Friends' with
>fooball and only that got 1.5 million viewers.
>
>Jamie
>>In its dying weeks, the British channel was attracting only
>> 320,000 viewers a week. A healthy satellite channel, such
>> as Sky 1, has an average audience of more than 5.3
>> million.
I think, the word week explains your dilemma. My physics teacher always
told me to check my units, (somethings you never forget !)
John
Jamie
In article <6b33aq$7gq$1...@svr-c-02.core.theplanet.net>, "John Sinclair"
Good point, something which I also remember my physics teacher telling me,
however I noticed that it compares a *total* with an *average* something I
quite sure you're not supposed to do (well at least in scientific terms).
Anyway, I think that the average of 5.3 million is way too high.
Prehaps this discussion should move to uk.tv.misc!! ;-)))
Regards
Jamie
--
jim....@argonet.co.uk
j.p.ma...@eee.salford.ac.uk
Richard Miller
In article <rY5PCAAC...@kedah.demon.co.uk>, Keiron Carroll
<kei...@kedah.demon.co.uk> writes
>Any how it will be sadly missed, I'll keep eating breakfast though and
>I'll put up with the Beeb slots every half hour instead. I do feel sorry
>for the presenters & backroom staff, they did a good job!
>
>Keiron Carroll
>Coventry, England
>
>kei...@kedah.demon.co.uk
Couldnt agree more - excellent for dipping into over breakfast -
Telewest (Preston North West) carried it in the morning upto 11.00 hrs - but
like others I only came across it recently - sounds pretty final ?
--
Richard Miller
Preston UK
David Reynolds
The message <IzTaZMA7...@booty.demon.co.uk>
from Martin Rowley <mar...@nospam.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> I see from the Daily Mail of a couple of days back that the Weather
> Channel is ceasing operations this Friday (30th). As they were only
> advertising for forecasters in the current (Jan) issue of 'Weather' it
> suggests a major switch/pullout of backing...does anyone have any
> further details?
Sorry this has taken a while, but I'm now in a position to post a few
facts and a little personal speculation on my part on TWC (UK).
FACTS
-----
The Weather Network (TWN) were backed by Pelmorex of Canada and WSI
of the USA, while The Weather Channel (TWC) were backed by Landmark
of the USA. The former run TWN in Canada, and the latter TWC in the USA.
In the UK, TWN was ahead of TWC in both setting up and technology;
following a merger Pelmorex and Landmark (not sure if this was
"total" or a few divisions), TWN & TWC merged. As a result of the
merger, the TWC name was kept, while TWN's staff and hardware was
retained. Landmark owned TWC fully, with other parties being brought
out. Losses were budgeted for the first few years, with profits then
being made around the turn of the century.
Landmark suddenly decided to pull out of not only TWC (UK) but also a
few other Weather Channels they set up elsewhere in Europe,
apparently due to losses.
SPECULATION
-----------
As losses were budgeted for, their sudden pull-out must have been a
result of audience figures significantly lower than anticipated
and/or something else. There is apparently a rival weather channel in
the pipeline for the USA, as TWC (USA) has been coming in for a lot
of critisism in the past few years (see occasional postings in
wx-chase, for example). Landmark's descision to pull out of Europe
may be a result of this threat to their US operation - it would be
prudent for them to save every penny(/cent) in advance of the
challenge. Equally, I may be wrong.
Many local cable companies (and Sky) did not carry the full 24 hour
feed, often resulting in TWC being broadcast at some obscure times of
the day. As other contributors to this thread have already noted, it
was NOT well publicised - by local cable companies, in other media
outlets and (surprisingly) in the meteorological community (did TWC
ever make an announcement in *any* of the British-based periodicals?).
I also feel TWC inadvertently hastened its own demise: the lack of
publicity may have been partly the result of it not "standing out".
Of the little programming that I have seen, I felt that there was an
unfortunate bias to "television" rather than "the weather". There's a
subtle difference; consider the following:
(1) How many of the big audience-puller weather "specials", as shown
on the USA's TWC, were shown over here? (were *any*?).
(2) How often did TWC (UK) send people out on location to areas where
severe weather was occurring in the UK, or where it had recently occurred?
(3) How often did TWC (UK) show similar footage from elsewhere in
Europe? (NOT brief snippets as seen on the news). The variety and
severity of weather across Europe rivals that of the USA (okay, so no
hurricanes, but certainly very damaging winter storms in the NW).
(4) Did TWC (UK) ever approach COL, RMS, UKMO, etc. for features
which encompass each of the organisations' areas of expertise?
(5) There was an offer from TORRO to supply information about severe
weather, including severe weather anniversaries on a day-to-day
basis; the option was also offered for TWC to participate in storm
chases in the UK when the potential existed for severe thunderstorms.
Sadly none of these offers were taken up.
I feel that if these five points had been better-addressed (or indeed
addressed at all), the content could have been *dramatic*, very
*educational* and appealing *all-round* to Joe Public - just as it is
in the USA. I believe that would have greatly increased the chances
of cable companies taking the full 24 hour feed, and the increased
audience figures (both through content and 24 hour accessibility)
would have enabled TWC to successfully increase rates for
advertisers. At best, profitability would have occurred sooner, at
worst losses would have been reduced (and as such may well have
encouraged Landmark to "stick in there").
On the other hand, it may have been the case that nothing could have
prevented Landmark from pulling out.
I did wonder if it was Landmark's intention to put TWC up for sale -
there are a whole load of cable companies who want such a channel and
the infrastructure is there. However, I would have thought this would
have been done while it was operational. All things considered, I now
believe TWC's demise is terminal. Regardless of whether somebody buys
it out or starts from scratch under a new name, it would need the
resources of a large backer with a LOT of money (to support the
losses until profits are made). However, presumably Landmark now have
many severance fees to pay to multitudes of cable companies etc.
(depending on how contracts were worded). The sudden loss of TWC is
likely to make cable companies less enthusiastic about taking a
weather channel on board again for the medium term.
I do believe that a UK weather channel *is* commercially viable.
However the situation we are now left in means that unless a backer
with a LOT of money comes forward soon, we can forget any prospect of
a UK weather channel on air for quite a few years.
All in all, a sad loss.
Regards,
Dave